Why the Burden of Proof is a Bad Argument

[AmbiguousGuy]

I've always understood the difference is that the subject answers the question "what?" or "who?" before the verb, and that the object answers the question "what?" or "who?" after the verb.

In both sentences I would call the burden of proof (BoP) the subject. A direct object takes the action of the verb.

Jack vomited the BoP onto an unsuspecting and unprepared RF audience.

But I'm not sure that grammatical technicality affects your argument one way or the other.

 

[Skwim]

In both sentences I would call the burden of proof (BoP) the subject. A direct object takes the action of the verb.

Jack vomited the BoP onto an unsuspecting and unprepared RF audience.

As I recall English structure, "Jack" would be the subject of the sentence, and "BoP" the object.

But I'm not sure that grammatical technicality affects your argument one way or the other.

It really doesn't. And rather than derail the thread this will be my last comment on the issue.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

As I recall English structure, "Jack" would be the subject of the sentence, and "BoP" the object.

Yes, I agree. We used to call it the 'direct object' to distinguish it from the indirect object, but that is probably caveman terminology these days. I don't know.

 

[LuisDantas]

How does a straight disagreement qualify as "arrogant"

Trusting one's own abilities so much that they are able to claim something of an Absolute reality is not possible

By that yardstick, theism is undeniably more arrogant than atheism could ever be, though.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

By that yardstick, theism is undeniably more arrogant than atheism could ever be, though.

I always think that when theists insist that the Bible is the Word of God or that Jesus was holy.

Why the heck would they know any better than I do what is the Word of God or who is the truest prophet?

 

[Sunstone]

Burden of proof in itself is not a bad argument. Burden of proof as described in the OP is a bad argument.

There! I've said it! We can all go home now.

 

[steeltoes]

As I told Penguin, I'm not necessarily looking to convince someone to be an atheist, but I do believe in the importance of discussing fundamental issues about how reality works. It is part of a very open and very needed public discourse. I respect your desire not to participate in such discussions, but I'm a bit puzzled as to what you are doing here.

Since you asked, I am here because beliefs fascinate me, I am not necessarily here to change them.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Some items of discussion have lines drawn.

I you agree....line drawn....
If not...line drawn.

That you did not accept an explanation IS a line drawn.

If I say to you....cause and effect...and you disagree.....
what line would you then prefer?

Having set aside a firm means of certainty (experiment not available)
What course of resolve do you affirm?

Simple nay saying?

If you say there is a blue piece of paper in a box. I say "I don't believe you". It does not imply that I believe that there is a piece of red paper in the box.

That is the problem. I am saying that my God is more evident to me than an apple on my palm, and you say there is no evidence for it. And that is your reason for being an Atheist?

What evidence can you present of your god? It is obviously not as apparent to me or anyone else who does not share your faith.

Personal experience and anecdotal evidence are not presentable nor compelling. So I issue the challenge again. What evidence can you provide for your god? What attributes or examples make his/her existence "obvious"?

 

[Copernicus]

a god that people think of as a willful agency that they worship and pray to.

Isn't that still too vague and self-contradictory, though? Even leaving aside such matters as whether Krishna or Amaterasu or Shango are Gods, even the faiths that center themselves on the notion of One True God have a very hard time reaching a consensus on what he would approve or want.

You have to look at patterns of usage, if you want to understand what people mean by a word. You can also listen to them debate with each other over what the word means, but you should always take such assertions with a grain of salt. People are quite often unaware of their own actual usage.

How logical is it to believe that such a being exists despite a remarkable lack of success in even basic communication of his will? Why would anyone treat such a hypothesis as roughly as logical as that of his non-existence?

Well, I don't think it's very logical, but you have to engage people in discussion to find out why they think that. I'm suggesting here that it is a bad strategy to start out trying to get them to acknowledge that they own the burden of proof. If you want to make that point, wait until you know what their idea of a "proof" is. Even then, you probably won't make much headway with that accusation.

It isn't? Why would anyone want to discuss the matter at all then?

Theists start out with the belief that gods exist. They are usually curious as to why you think they don't. It is a really good idea to get a definition, but, as I said, people aren't always very good at telling you what they mean by a word. Sometimes doctrinal positions obscure what they actually use the word to mean in everyday usage.

I don't know about that. There is a sizeable subset of theists who seems to believe that they have proof, at least.

Believing that you have proof isn't the same as believing that you have the burden of proof. Don't forget that the default position of atheists in these debates is that the proof (i.e. evidence) has to meet their standards of acceptance to be valid. There is nothing wrong with the "burden of proof" argument except when it comes to judging who has met the standard.

Right, but I haven't agreed fully with that way of putting it. I would just say that "burden of proof" is a bad argument because it is usually a non-starter for theists. I believe that Falvlun has made that point quite well.

It is certainly a bad argument for theists. It does not follow that it is a bad argument generally.

That isn't what I said. I said that it is a bad argument when used by an atheist against theism. I am treating "bad" as synonymous with "futile" and "ineffective".

Maybe you can explain it to me then?

OK, but I agree with Skwim that it isn't relevant to his point. I'm a linguist, so these things matter to me. Here were the original expressions with the underlined noun phrases:

The title of the thread is, " Why the Burden of Proof is a Bad Argument."

And, the very first words in the OP are, "I believe the burden of proof argument, as deployed by many atheists, is a bad argument, both ethically and philosophically."

Titles are not usually full sentences, but let's just focus on the linking verb "is" in both expressions. What is it's subject? It is "the Burden of Proof". There is no verb in the title that it could be the direct object of, and the direct object of "believe" in the second expression is the subordinate clause that follows it, not the subject of the subordinate clause. You can use pronouns to show it. You would never have a title like "Why Him is a Bad Person" or a sentence like "I believe him, as described by many atheists, is a bad person." Hope that suffices.

 

[Copernicus]

Since you asked, I am here because beliefs fascinate me, I am not necessarily here to change them.

Same with me. You can see why BoP is not the best way to start out a conversation with a theist, then, can't you? You won't find out much about their beliefs if you manage to get them to walk away in disgust.

 

[Thief]

If you say there is a blue piece of paper in a box. I say "I don't believe you". It does not imply that I believe that there is a piece of red paper in the box.




What evidence can you present of your god? It is obviously not as apparent to me or anyone else who does not share your faith.

Personal experience and anecdotal evidence are not presentable nor compelling. So I issue the challenge again. What evidence can you provide for your god? What attributes or examples make his/her existence "obvious"?

That logic wasn't firm.
There is a natural line drawn when it comes to faith.
You believe...or you don't.

If you say you don't...it's because you decided not to.
Decision should be done for cause and reason.

I believe in God as science offers cause and effect.
The universe is the effect....God is the cause.


Did you take the red pill?...or the blue one?

 

[LuisDantas]

You have to look at patterns of usage, if you want to understand what people mean by a word. You can also listen to them debate with each other over what the word means, but you should always take such assertions with a grain of salt. People are quite often unaware of their own actual usage.

You tell me.

I suspect one of the reasons why this thread has become so long is because there are two conflicting understandings of its purpose.

The OP and most theists who have posted seem to be aiming for a statement of equal validity a priori between atheism and theism.

Skwim, myself and others seem have a hard time even remembering of that perspective, because it is such a non-issue in our experience. We usually accept that point, but have to deal with the reality of being pressured by theists who think (or have convinced themselves) they have the higher moral (or even logical!) ground.

I don't disagree with the first perspective. I just don't see why it is a subject worth of discussion at all. It lacks practical value.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

That logic wasn't firm.
There is a natural line drawn when it comes to faith.
You believe...or you don't.

If you say you don't...it's because you decided not to.
Decision should be done for cause and reason.

I believe in God as science offers cause and effect.
The universe is the effect....God is the cause.


Did you take the red pill?...or the blue one?

Actually I didn't "choose" to "not believe". I realized I don't believe. Just as you don't "choose" to not believe in Santa. So no it is not a choice in that regard. It is a conclusion.

So that breaks down the whole of the rest of your argument.

Though I have a question for you. If you define god only as "the cause of the universe" doesn't that remove any actual relevance or importance to the concept of god? What if it was defined and now it is called naturalistic? You could still call it god. People used to call the sun a god. Why? Because of all that it can do. We explain it now and its naturalistic. Would the same thing happen to you and your definition of god? Or do you still attach other meanings to the word other than "cause of the universe"?

 

[atanu]

What evidence can you present of your god? It is obviously not as apparent to me or anyone else who does not share your faith.

Personal experience and anecdotal evidence are not presentable nor compelling. So I issue the challenge again. What evidence can you provide for your god? What attributes or examples make his/her existence "obvious"?

It is not about my failure to give you evidence. It is about your decision to be an atheist based on my failure.

Absence of proof is not a proof of absence.

 

[LuisDantas]

It is not about my failure to give you evidence. It is about your decision to be an atheist based on my failure.

Absence of proof is not a proof of absence.

Being an atheist usually isn't a decision, but rather a realization, as Monk just said.

But even if it were a decision, what of it?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

It is not about my failure to give you evidence. It is about your decision to be an atheist based on my failure.

Absence of proof is not a proof of absence.

Wrong. On a few levels actually...

First I am an atheist because I have not seen evidence of god. I cannot logically believe in something without evidence to support it. Especially something that has historically been fallacious. My atheism existed before your involvement.

So prior to meeting you I was an atheist because I, myself, have not seen evidence of god. You now say you do believe in god. If we were to have a conversation about the subject then all I have to do to support my position is point out the lack of evidence. I can't go out and find all the non-evidence to present to you. I have not made a claim.

You however have claimed that there is a god. Not only is there a god but you know him. You know him as well as you know an apple that sits in your palm. Now if you wish for me to take you seriously or, to go even further, believe you, then the burden of providing evidence for your case has been established.

My atheism is no more hinged upon you holding up your end of the bargain as your theism is hinged upon me disproving your faith.

However if you could somehow provide sufficient evidence of a god claim then I would be inclined to believe you and no longer be an atheist. So you hold the potential to break my position but you are not the root cause.


And the second level you were wrong is the way you have used the phrase "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". It actually is. Or at least in terms of what we can define as true or factual.

If there is no evidence then it can neither be deemed true or factual. It doesn't necessarily mean the opposite is true or that its impossible. Take note that I don't claim its impossible for god to exist but simply I haven't found a reason to believe.

 

[atanu]

Wrong. On a few levels actually...

First I am an atheist because I have not seen evidence of god. I cannot logically believe in something without evidence to support it. Especially something that has historically been fallacious. My atheism existed before your involvement.

So prior to meeting you I was an atheist because I, myself, have not seen evidence of god. You now say you do believe in god. If we were to have a conversation about the subject then all I have to do to support my position is point out the lack of evidence. I can't go out and find all the non-evidence to present to you. I have not made a claim........

So this is of no importance. You make no claim, as per your own submission.

Your claim of atheism is based only on my failure to prove my theism.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

So this is of no importance. You make no claim, as per your own submission.

Your claim of atheism is based only on my failure to prove my theism.

You are a broken record no matter how many times I fix you aren't you?

YOUR failure to prove theism is not the CAUSE of my atheism. HOWEVER if you COULD prove your THEISM then it would CAUSE me to abandon my atheism.

For example if I place a cup on a table. Is the reason its on the table because no one pushes it off? no. Its on the table because someone put it there. But it is within the realm of possibility that someone could come and push it off.

 

[Willamena]

I've touched on this in other threads. I understand that there are people like you who feel this way. I take this to mean that your mental model of how the world works (in which God is central) agrees pretty well with reality: your expectations aren't violated very often, and you see no reason to re-evaluate your original assumption of God.

OTOH, the exact same thing happens with atheists. My god-free mental model of the world agrees pretty well with reality, too. So how do we resolve this apparent conflict? How can our mental models be so different but both work so well?

Here's how: the assumption of God doesn't actually get tested very often. The fact that your mental model of the world functions no better than mine means that the extra thing in your model - God - adds no explanatory value. IOW, God is irrelevant.

Well, to be fair the assumption of a world without God doesn't get tested at all.

 

[Breathe]

By that yardstick, theism is undeniably more arrogant than atheism could ever be, though.

It's a tu quoque, but I disagree. Theism is saying "we don't know everything, and we believe there is another factor" (i.e., God). We don't pretend to know everything. Every religion (and I'd say most, if not all theists) says that there is much more to God's Nature than we will ever understand.
We're not ones saying "this can't happen" and pretending we know everything about everything.